Should Jody Wagner's Former Law Firm Be an Issue in the LG Campaign?

I've been looking into the backgrounds of various candidates, including the apparent Democratic frontrunner for the Lieutenant Governor nomination, Jody Wagner. One thing I came across was Wagner's former employment at the law firm, Kaufman and Canoles, where she was a partner (and where she worked for 18 years). Given the heated attacks against Wagner in recent days by Pat Edmonson regarding labor issues, I thought the "Labor & Employment section of Kaufman & Canoles' website might be worth looking at. Here's an excerpt (bolding added for emphasis):

The firm represents management in a full range of employment and traditional labor issues including discrimination, discharge, and wage and hour litigation in federal and state courts and cognizant government agencies.

This specialized practice area of Kaufman & Canoles has grown to become the largest in southeastern Virginia...

[...]

Our primary objective is to offer practical advice to minimize risk and keep clients out of court. But if we must defend a company before a state or federal agency or court, our strategy is simple: win at the earliest possible stage. Although all of our labor and employment attorneys are experienced litigators, counseling employers before litigation develops is of utmost importance. The labor and employment team has developed a significant employer counseling practice which features day to day advice to employers and frequent drafting of employment manuals, handbooks and practical policies for managing the workplace. We have long represented management in union avoidance and unfair labor practice matters.

What really caught my eye here was the last sentence, particularly the phrases "represented management" and "union avoidance." That certainly doesn't sound very good from the strongly pro-labor, pro-union perspective I hold.

For this to be an issue, however, the first question that needs to be asked is whether Jody Wagner was involved in any way with the "union avoidance" work of her former law firm. From what I've gathered, the answer to that question is clearly "no" -- the firm has over 100 lawyers working in a number of different practices, including labor law, but Wagner never was involved in that area.

The second question is whether the mere fact that Wagner was a partner at Kaufman & Canoles should make the firm's pro-management, "union avoidance" work an issue in the Democratic primary. On this point, I have mixed feelings. In 2006, Andy Hurst was criticized for his work at Reed Smith, which has a labor section that specializes in - among other things - "Maintaining a Union-Free Workplace." The problem with this line of criticism is that Reed Smith is a huge law firm (more than 1,500 attorneys) and Andy Hurst doesn't work on labor issues Should the fact that Hurst is a partner at ReedSmith be held against him? I tend to think not.

For my part, I would give Jody Wagner the benefit of the doubt on this one, just as I gave Andy Hurst the benefit of the doubt in 2006. I'd be interested, however, to hear what union leaders and pro-labor politicians think of Wagner's 18 years of work at a firm that advises management on "union avoidance."

UPDATE: I've been informed by a reader that Wagner "has taken almost $40K in campaign contributions from Kaufman & Canoles, $19,100 in this race so far (obviously not even including the reporting period that just ended) including contributions from partners and leading attorney’s in their labor and employment section. Donors to Jody Wagner who are currently working in the labor & employment section of Kaufman & Canoles are Burt Whitt, Laura Gross, Barrow Blackwell, Robert Barry and Stanley Barr.